Danube Bend & Pilis Best Practice



Summer Festival in the Danube Bend

Dunakanyari Nyari Jatekok

The local economy - internal and external context

The Dunakanyar-Pilis Municipality or as it is more commonly called by the public on its nick-name, the Szentendrei Sub-Region, is made up of around 330 square km just North of central Hungary. In the sub-region there are about 75 000 people living in 13 settlements. These 13, mostly urban, settlements are:Budakalasz, Csobanka, Dunabogdany, Kisoroszi Leanyfalu Piliszsentkereszt, Pilisszentlaszlo,Pocsmegyer,Pomaz, Szentendre, Szigetmonostor, Tahitótfalu, Visegrad.

The Szentendrei sub-region is one of the most developed regions in Hungary, with only 2% of employment in the agricultural sector It says the rate of people employed in agriculture [DOES THIS INCLUDE ALL RAW MATERIALS - PRIMARY - INDUSTRIES?], 25% in industry [DOES THIS INCLUDE ALL MANUFACTURING - SECONDARY - INDUSTRIES?]. And the rest of the people (73%) are working in the service sector. [DOES THIS INCLUDE ALL SERVICE - TERTIARY - INDUSTRIES?]

[CAN YOU COMPARE THESE FIGURES TO NATIONAL AVERAGES?]

Regarding support for the knowledge economy, in its broadest terms, the Sub-Region is home to EMI Szentendre Industrial Park [WEBSITE, OR WEBSITE OF ONE OR TWO BUSINESSES THERE?], where many research companies are located [HOW MANY?], working in industries such as engineering (such as elevator development, and frame building) and quality control.

Local physical, environmental and societal factors that affect the economic condition and prospects of the Szenetendrei sub-region include:
 * The proximity of the River Danube, and its use as a human, and freight transport and travel route (both for industry and leisure)
 * The River Danube as potential venue for the development of sport tourism
 * A rich cultural heritage (both of the Hungarians and of the minorities living in the Sub-Region [CAN YOU NAME A FEW OF THE SIGNIFICANT MINORITIES LIVING THERE?])
 * Good natural habitats in the sub-region (for instance, many parts of the sub-region are part of the EU’s Natura 2000 network of sites)
 * Proximity of Budapest, the capital of Hungary [CAN YOU SAY EXACTLY HOW FAR AWAY IT IS, PLEASE?]
 * Well educated people (In 2001 the average of completed school grades of people living in the sub-region was 10,28 - [COMPARED TO A NATIONAL AVERAGE OF?])
 * Many museums, exhibition halls and galleries [CAN YOU NAME SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT ONES, AND VISITOR NUMBERS IF POSSIBLE]

The nature of our intervention

On the face of it our intervention, the Summer Festival in the Danube Bend [WHEN WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE FESTIVAL, PIROSKA?], is neither particularly original nor innovative. The reasons for instigating the festival were also common motivations for creating a new cultural festival: to boost cultural tourism, increase the local event management skills-base and also to strengthen and communicate a stronger sense of local identity.

However, we believe that the details of the implementation of this festival and the way its implementation responded to local challenges, are the factors that set it apart and provide “best practice”. There were four strands to the implementation which we concentrated our implementation on:

branding

cooperation

quality

living history

We concentrated on these four areas in response to research that we undertook in 2007 that found:

1. In our sub-region there were summer cultural events in almost every city. Although the programs of these festivals interested and engaged many local people, the events did not attract as many visitors as we believed they had the potential to, given the quality of their cultural output.

2. With strong local interest, local authorities worked hard to maintain these program (by dint of their repetition, seen locally as “traditional” to their locality), despite not having the financial resources to market these events on the tourism market and hence have the potential to draw a larger audience from further afield.

3. Not every production onstage was of a comparative high quality.

[CAN YOU CLARIFY, PIROSKA - ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCTION (I.E. MANAGEMENT) OR THE QUALITY OF THE ART OR BOTH?]

These findings added were seen alongside other research, conducted in 2006 that found very little evidence that local people defined themselves by a regional identity. There was little or no “I belong to the Danube Bend” identity.

One potential cause of this lack of regional self-identification was another finding of the 2006 research: there was little evidence of cooperation across the sub-region [CAN YOU BE SPECIFIC HERE. DO YOU MEAN INDIVIDUAL COOPERATION FROM ONE CITY TO ANOTHER, WITHIN THE CITIES THEMSELVES OR BEYOND THE SUB-REGION. ALSO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BUSINESS TO BUSINESS OR CITY COUNCIL TO CITY COUNCIL?]. This reflected a wider lack of cooperation and partnership working which is found across Hungary [ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS?]

Alongside these challenges were opportunities, such as the rich cultural heritage and good natural habitats mentioned earlier. These provided strong cultural foundations on which to build.

In the face of this evidence, we therefore set our objective as to increase the Danube Bend identity, and to develop the ability of cooperation in our sub-region among people working in the creative and cultural industries.

Our solutions

1. Identify a strong foundation on which to build a local identity

Faced with this objective, we first had to more precisely define how we could best approach it. This was necessary because it is difficult to achieve a goal with such a wide-ranging target such as “To increase the Danube Band identity”, especially considering the limits that a municipal authority works within in terms of finance, resources and influence. To getting closer to our objectives first we had to consider what is the first thing Hungarian people think of when someone mentions the cultural heritage in Szentendre, Visegrad, Budakalsz, Csobanka and the other sub-regional cities. After internal consultation, finally the management came to the conclusion that the best known fact about the Danube Bend is that our great king, King Matyas (1458-1490) had his royal residence in Visegrad and owned many valuable buildings built in the region. King Matyas is a very well known figure in Hungarian folk art, with many popular folk tales about him. His memory are generally very positive. Colloquially known as “Matyas the Righteous”, his image is as clever and wise, commonly held to be successful in all fields of governance, economy, national defence and the development of trade. We therefore decided to built a project around “image of King Matyas” as our foundation for improving local identity.

If we wished to improve the quality of production, we had to raise the funds to allow this to take place. Simply, if you want to put more, better productions onstage, you have to have the means of inviting more prestigious groups who require higher fees.
 * 1) Find the funds to improve the quality of production and encourage cooperation.

In this respect we were perhaps fortunate there was the Hungarian national tourism development policy tended to support regional cultural programs over and above local events. In other words cultural cooperation in sub-regions was a national priority in tourism policy.

So the management of our sub-region thought we could best profit from the national intentions if we put together a cultural festival in which all settlements were involved. We decided to make a marketing action serving the festival and to build out a new “trade mark” for the summer festival in our sub-region.

So the elements of the solution were:
 * A new event brand (Dunakanyari Nyari Jatekok)
 * A strong marketing campaign co-financed by the national Hungarian government
 * The new brand was built upon the good image of King Matyas
 * We made a condition of participation of the festival that people working in the local authorities of the 13 settlements cooperated with one other more effectively [COULD YOU MENTION A COUPLE OF WAYS YOU DID THIS? I’M ASSUMING YOU DIDN’T HAND-CUFF THEM!]
 * Funds raised were spent on improving the quality of the cultural offer - mainly on the costs of better performers.


 * We brought our plans into effect in June, July and August 2008, with valuable productions on stage in all 13 settlements in our sub-region. Over and above the event’s branding, many of the programmes themselves had a connection with the cultural heritage of King Matyas. As well as the core programme, we also incorporated the productions of the local amateur groups too.

c. What is the effect of the intervention?

It is very difficult to measure such a phenomenon as the growth of identity and the improvement of effectiveness of cooperation. However we can say that in 2009 people of our sub-region asked the local authorities about their plans for “Dunakanyari Nyari Jatekok” that shows that sooner or later this festival will become a tradition. Can a municipality ask to make much more of an impact in its cultural life than to establish a tradition?

d. What advice would you give others?
 * Base your cultural activities on strong national historical heritage
 * Build upon what’s really there in terms of history, culture and heritage
 * Research broader perceptions and local habits, then listen to the research and act upon it
 * Be aware that quality costs more but it is worth to buy
 * People want to belong to social subgroups. This feeling of belonging can extend to a sub-region identity too
 * Cost effective solutions are the base of cooperation [CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS POINT A LITTLE MORE, PLEASE?]
 * Luck plays some part in success (for instance, where national priorities align with local ambitions)